JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. The present transfer application has been moved on behalf of applicant Chandra Mohan Shukla, who is complainant in a case under Sections 147/148/149/307/302 IPC, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Banda. The grounds of transfer, given in the present application are that Ashoka Kumar Awasthi and Anandi Kumar, who are practicing advocates in District Court, Banda, have approaches with the judicial officers. By virtue of their best approach, the accused persons have also approached the trial court, which is apparent from abnormal and un-natural conduct of the trial court. The transfer application was moved before the Sessions Judge for transferring this case to some other court at Banda, which was rejected. The Sessions Judge directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously, without fear and favour. The Sessions Judge also observed that complainant is in habit of making complaints against the presiding officers. The accused persons were indulged in approaching the concerned authorities right from the time of investigation till today. The complainant has complained against the District Government Counsel (Criminal) as well. The present presiding officer Hemant Kumar is said to have shown great zeal in disposal of the case and accused persons are also making extraordinary effort to secure the acquittal.
2. I have heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Awasthi and Sri Manish Tiwari learned Counsel for opposite party Nos. to 2 to 7 and learned A.G.A for opposite party No. 1. I have perused the entire allegations and judgment of the Sessions Judge.
3. The two grounds taken by the applicant before the Sessions Judge did not find favour and the said application was rejected. The first ground taken was that the presiding judge asked the accused in the court that they should not be over anxious and secondly, the accused were seen by the complainant, visiting the house of presiding officer and remained there about 25 months. Both the allegations are absolutely incorrect and frivolous. The complainant made complaints right from the investigation stage but nothing shows that any undue favour was given to accused. The investigation was completed, the charge sheet was submitted, the charges were framed and evidence of prosecution was recorded. After the defence evidence, the case is now being listed for argument. No doubt, the complainant has apprehension right from the stage of investigation but there is nothing to show that accused was favoured, either by investigating agency or by prosecuting agency or by the trial court.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is settled principle that if there is apprehension in the mind of any party, the case must be transferred. He relied upon Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005(11) U.P. Crl. Ruling page 692 and invited my attention towards para 24 of the said judgment.
5. I have gone through para 24 of the judgment. It is dependent on the factual position of that State and no such principle has been laid down. To quote the said para, which runs as follows:
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner and other co-accused of the case have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice in the State of Tamil Nadu. We would like to clarify here that we are casting no reflection on the district judiciary in the State of Tamil Nadu. But it is the actions of the prosecuting agency and the State machinery, which are responsible for creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and other co-accused that they will not get justice if the trial is held in any place inside the State of Tamil Nadu. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that the trial may be transferred to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
6. Thus it has not been laid down that even on the ground of apprehension, the case must be transferred. In fact it was the action of prosecuting agency and State machinery, which were responsible for creating the apprehension in the mind of applicant but in the present case there is nothing of this sort. The applicant is apprehensive at each and every stage but as indicated above, there is nothing to show that any undue favour was done for the accused.
7. Considering this, I do not find any force in this transfer application and it is hereby dismissed.